200-300 sqm prefabricated house or passive house? Manufacturer? Construction company?

Platz Haus 21 has a similar orientation to Huf

I would never build a prefabricated house, no matter how good they have become nowadays. You notice the difference at the latest with the first renovation or when selling. You have enough capital for a decent solid house, whether it really needs to be 200 sqm +x is another question. Children also leave home at some point, then 250 sqm suddenly becomes huge, or if the house is to be sold, you first have to find someone who needs that much space and will pay for it.

If I were you, I would see if you can manage with 180-200 sqm; that should also easily fit within the costs.

Best regards Dirk Grafe

It's actually surprising how long the prejudices persist.
Prefab houses - there are also ones made of bricks (how do they hold up regarding value retention, remodeling, ???)
Prefab houses come in all kinds of quality levels - from catalog models to individual architect solutions.
The same applies, by the way, to 'solidly' built ones.
Solid... is aerated concrete solid? Or such a highly porous brick - ever used a rotary hammer on it?
And how should prefab element ceilings or prefab roof trusses be rated (here someone 'solidly' glued their house from aerated concrete and had a larger carpentry company manufacture the roof truss in the workshop and put it on the house - roof is in place and watertight within one day).

There are reasons why some people prefer to build 'solidly,' others prefer timber frame construction, and yet others prefer 'solid wood' - does that then count as 'solid' or 'prefab' house? And I have also seen timber frame structures at the construction site that were only assembled and sheathed from individual parts there. Not solid, and definitely not prefab... It also became a nice house, where remodeling later on should not be a problem.

Regarding the popular topic 'construction time': sometimes a prefab house can be occupied faster from the start of planning. Depending on the workload in the factory, weather, degree of prefabrication. But you can't rely on that! Even from the start of construction - it still depends on the workload and availability of all individual trades...

Value retention... is also difficult to answer. High-quality houses always perform better in the local market environment than dilapidated properties; the construction method plays little to no role here. The renovation effort can be significant in both cases, but can also be very low in both cases - this has a significantly greater impact on the achievable purchase price than the construction method.
Durability? Usually not a factor either. The oldest houses in our village all have a masonry base and on top a braced timber frame, filled with straw and clay.

Best regards
I.

It is actually amazing how long prejudices persist.

[...]

Preservation of value... is also difficult to answer.

This is not a prejudice that "lasts amazingly long," but rather what can be observed in younger prefabricated houses or their current price depreciation. It is also not particularly difficult to answer: the preservation of value is simply significantly lower than that of a non-prefabricated house (in whatever construction method), meaning: with the same age and repair/renovation needs, the value loss of the prefab house is higher. However, it is usually the case that repair and renovation needs after the same period are higher in the prefab house, which adds an additional dynamic that most owners are not aware of. This plays a subordinate role as long as one lives in the prefab house oneself. But when selling, the loss is realized—or one has to wait a long time until finding a fool (which also happens).

Regards
Dirk Grafe

:

Of course, every prefabricated house is the same and every solid house is the same. Quality and value differences within each type of construction are of course not present at all.

It's the same with cars. The difference between a Dacia and a Porsche is just the price...

Sorry, I would have expected a more nuanced view from you...

:
It is the same with cars. The difference between a Dacia and a Porsche is merely the price...

Ignoring your unfortunately completely misplaced irony: No, the value. That is why I usually talk about depreciation when it comes to such things. The depreciation is significantly higher with the Porsche than with the Dacia, absolutely regardless of where the respective prices (!) stand in relation. This includes – as you can nicely see from this example – the qualitative differences in construction. The only problem is that there is no equivalent to the Dacia in the FH sector. If there were, it would have to be an FH built at the absolute lowest limit, for example 150,000 €, and after 5-10 years upon sale would retain almost the same value (not price, which can be influenced by general price developments). But there is neither the one nor the other, and honestly, I am not responsible for the buying behavior of interested parties.

Sorry, I would have expected a more differentiated view especially from you...

I want to be polite: if the differentiation, which has already been consistently present in my first posts, has not become clear to you, then I will try to make that even clearer in the future. But honestly, I would have expected a less annoying response especially from you.

Regards
Dirk Grafe